Fig. 7

Variation of profiles contributions in healthy vs CD and dysbiotic vs not dysbiotic samples. The metabolic network of fibre degradation is displayed, and profile contribution in GH/PL and KO counts is color coded on the corresponding arrows of the network. Profile contributions are displayed for healthy (N, left panel) and CD (right panel) samples and dysbiotic (lower panel) and not dysbiotic (upper panel) samples. Namely, we compute CD and healthy average profiles weight \(\bar{W}^{(AFT)}_{train,g}\) by averaging \(W^{(AFT)}_{train}\) on the sample group g (N and dysbiotic, N and not dysbiotic, CD and dysbiotic, CD and not dysbiotic). Average AFT counts \(\bar{X}^{(AFT)}_{train,g}\) are obtained in the same manner for each group. Then, average profile contribution for AFT j and profile i is computed with \(\bar{W}^{(AFT)}_{train,g,i} H^{(AFT)}_{ij}\left/\bar{X}^{(AFT)}_{train,g,j}\right.\). The respective relative contribution of profiles 1, 2 and 3 is then mapped into a ternary color map (central triangle) and displayed on the corresponding arrow or GH/PL box. Black arrows indicate AFT the main contribution of which is given by profile 4. Arrow widths are proportional to AFT counts in \(\bar{X}^{(AFT)}_{train,g}\). For N&Not dysbiotic graph, all the AFTs are represented (control situation). For the other graph, the AFTs that significantly changed compared to N&Not dysbiotic group (t-test and Benjamini Hochberg correction with \(FDR < 0.05\)) were filtered; we then ordered AFTs by compositional changes compared to N&Not dysbiotic group (L2 difference on \(\bar{W}^{(AFT)}_{train,g,i} H^{(AFT)}_{ij}\left/\bar{X}^{(AFT)}_{train,g,j}\right.\) computed on both groups) and kept the top 20 AFTs in order to highlight the main changes in microbiota composition. The same figure can be explored dynamically (see Additional file 10—metabolic exploration)